Nevertheless, to hear it used in parliament is in keeping with the tone the Maori Party has set. Except it came from ACT. Which disappoints me.
But it's another C word that ACT invoked that really depressed me. It leaves me shaking my head about where ACT's principles are at. My bogey C word is collectivism.
ACT is supposed to be the bastion of individual rights. They rail against the identity politics beloved of the Left, because identity politics always lead to illogical, inconsistent and contradictory positions.
But now they have a member saying, "No woman in this Parliament or in this country should be subjected to sex-based discrimination ... us women need to stand together."
It doesn't work does it? That's the same as 'We Maori need to stand together' which is exactly the bullying tactic used against Maori ACT MPs who refuse to toe the separatist, race-based policy line.
Parliament exists to make laws that are as fair as possible. The basis for achieving that end can only be the individual. That's the whole gist of the Treaty Principles Bill - rights lie in the equal humanity of individuals regardless of race and gender.
ACT is supposed to be the bastion of individual rights. They rail against the identity politics beloved of the Left, because identity politics always lead to illogical, inconsistent and contradictory positions.
But now they have a member saying, "No woman in this Parliament or in this country should be subjected to sex-based discrimination ... us women need to stand together."
It doesn't work does it? That's the same as 'We Maori need to stand together' which is exactly the bullying tactic used against Maori ACT MPs who refuse to toe the separatist, race-based policy line.
Parliament exists to make laws that are as fair as possible. The basis for achieving that end can only be the individual. That's the whole gist of the Treaty Principles Bill - rights lie in the equal humanity of individuals regardless of race and gender.
If ACT is now the party of feminists whinging about misogyny, I don't know who is left to vote for.
Lindsay Mitchell is a welfare commentator who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced.
Lindsay Mitchell is a welfare commentator who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced.
5 comments:
Hang on a minute. There is a huge distinction between calling someone a c*** or w**ker or (to be multicultural) a pip* elo, and on the other hand, referring to one of those words in an official capacity to complain or report what someone else has said. In courts of law, if you do the former you will be up for contempt of court, but those words are used in evidence, to describe what someone said, every day.
Brooke van Velden was clearly using the word in the second instance, in an official capacity, yet all the media and columnists criticise her. At the same time, the mainstream media defends Andrea Vance for using it in the former sense, as abuse against women. Shows how trashy our media is.
Precisely! That puts the distinction in a nutshell.
Disagree Lindsay, Stick with your own knitting please. You are good at what you focus on .
That's interesting. My main criticism concerned ACT adopting a collectivist position.
It's erroneous to think of ACT adopting a position here. They saw among the questions on notice from Labour referring to Andrea Vance's column with the C word, so van Velden was primed to come forward with some ersatz feminism so as to turn attention to the word rather than to the legislation on pay equity. It worked: evoking a pseudo-solidarity among Parliamentary female MPs to distract attention from her govt's lack of solidarity with low-paid women, and getting the media carrying on about the word. As an old-school feminist, I wouldn't have said 'us women should stand together', but in a less fake situation, I might have said 'we women should stand together'. Van Velden is my MP, and she needs to lift her game, both ethically and grammatically....
Post a Comment